https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180781 Penalty for concealment of income under section 28(1)(c) was not justified because the assessee had disclosed the disputed Vellarmalai Estate entry in its books and consistently explained that the receipts and expenses were handled on behalf of a company to be formed. The revenue did not make effective further enquiry or prove that the explanation was false, nor that the books reflected a deceptive suppression of income. The court held that concealment requires deliberate and conscious suppression with mens rea, and a mere omission or mistaken accounting entry is insufficient. On the materials, the explanation appeared bona fide and was supported by the later transfer to the new company, so deliberate concealment was not proved. en-us Wed, 22 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:05:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180781 Penalty for concealment of income under section 28(1)(c) was not justified because the assessee had disclosed the disputed Vellarmalai Estate entry in its books and consistently explained that the receipts and expenses were handled on behalf of a company to be formed. The revenue did not make effective further enquiry or prove that the explanation was false, nor that the books reflected a deceptive suppression of income. The court held that concealment requires deliberate and conscious suppression with mens rea, and a mere omission or mistaken accounting entry is insufficient. On the materials, the explanation appeared bona fide and was supported by the later transfer to the new company, so deliberate concealment was not proved. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180781